About Me

Known principally for his weekly political columns and his commentaries on radio and television, Chris Trotter has spent most of his adult life either engaging in or writing about politics. He was the founding editor of The New Zealand Political Review (1992-2005) and in 2007 authored No Left Turn, a political history of New Zealand. Living in Auckland with his wife and daughter, Chris describes himself as an “Old New Zealander” – i.e. someone who remembers what the country was like before Rogernomics. He has created this blog as an archive for his published work and an outlet for his more elegiac musings. It takes its name from Bowalley Road, which runs past the North Otago farm where he spent the first nine years of his life. Enjoy.

Bowalley Road Rules

The blogosphere tends to be a very noisy, and all-too-often a very abusive, place. I intend Bowalley Road to be a much quieter, and certainly a more respectful, place.So, if you wish your comments to survive the moderation process, you will have to follow the Bowalley Road Rules.These are based on two very simple principles:Courtesy and Respect.Comments which are defamatory, vituperative, snide or hurtful will be removed, and the commentators responsible permanently banned.Anonymous comments will not be published. Real names are preferred. If this is not possible, however, commentators are asked to use a consistent pseudonym.Comments which are thoughtful, witty, creative and stimulating will be most welcome, becoming a permanent part of the Bowalley Road discourse.However, I do add this warning. If the blog seems in danger of being over-run by the usual far-Right suspects, I reserve the right to simply disable the Comments function, and will keep it that way until the perpetrators find somewhere more appropriate to vent their collective spleen.

Followers

Thursday, 13 December 2012

Journalism In Twenty-First Century New Zealand

The Nature Of The Beast: How should journalism be defined in Twenty-First Century New Zealand?

WHAT DOES IT MEAN to be a journalist in Twenty-First Century
New Zealand? Why do thousands of young people every year sign up (and pay for)
tertiary courses in journalism and communications studies? It certainly isn’t for
the journalist's starting salary. Modern journalism is a high-stress, unrelenting,
poorly-paid and (if the trust and confidence surveys are to be believed) almost
universally despised profession. Why bother?

The oldest and still the most common answer journalists,
both real and aspiring, offer to those who ask this question is: “To make a
difference.” Ever since the invention of the printing press, people with something
to say have seized the opportunity communication technology provides to reach a mass audience. In other words, people become journalists to access
the power of the media. Their motivation is political.

Most journalists are loath to admit
that power and politics have even the slightest bearing on their reasons for joining the
profession. They’ll object that their motivations were much more honourable
than the crude pursuit of power. Many will insist that they were only interested
in sharing information with the public. Some will say they joined to right
wrongs and correct abuses. Others will plead simple curiosity – an overwhelming
need to know what’s going on.

They should not be believed.

The first thing that any journalist encounters – no matter
whether he or she is in print, radio, television or web journalism – is their new
employers’ editorial culture. This will determine practically every aspect of
their job. If they’re interested only in gathering and disseminating
information, the editorial culture of the newspaper, magazine, radio station or
TV network will very soon make it clear which information is to be gathered and
disseminated and which is best left alone. If they’re out to slay ogres and
dragons they’ll be told which ones are fair game and which ones to leave
undisturbed. If they’re simply curious they’ll learn very swiftly that there
are institutions and individuals about whom it is positively dangerous to ask
too many questions.

Every journalist entering the profession, therefore, has a
choice. Submit to the culture, or walk away. That so few choose to walk away speaks volumes about the professional temperament of journalists.
The thrill of reaching and influencing a mass audience trumps just about every
other consideration. As is the case with all mercenaries, money is important to
the working journalist – but it isn’t crucial. They do what they do because
nothing else comes close. Who cares if the issues being addressed and the
editorial line being followed are dictated by somebody else? It’s the
journalists’ words, and their images, that make the difference on the ground.

If you remain doubtful that journalists are essentially power-seeking
politicos with keyboards and/or cameras, just consider the twenty-first
century “communications” career-path. In the process of making a master communicator
journalism is only the apprenticeship phase. A few years of “churnalism”, of
demonstrating that he or she possesses a safe pair of hands, and the apprentice
is taken up into the public relations industry.

Providing there’s nothing in the journalist’s career suggesting
some unwillingness to embrace the culture of their paymasters, the shift to PR
work will generally double their income overnight. In this world there’s no
place for idealistic self-justifications. Here, the journalist’s talents for
effective communication are to be placed unashamedly at the disposal of
corporate power – end of story.

An alternative path to becoming a well-paid shill for the
rich and the powerful is via the offices of Government and Opposition
politicians. For ambitious members of the Parliamentary Press Gallery, becoming
a “spin-doctor” is easily the quickest route to a six-figure salary. It does,
however, require a solid grasp of the realities of political reporting: hunt as
a pack; share the spoils; and under no circumstances attempt to write your own
words or music to the unfolding drama.

Above all else, the successful political journalist
understands and accepts that democratic politics can only be about the replacement
and replenishment of elites. Faces may come and go, but the fundamental story must
always be the same. Politicians and journalists who attempt to construct and/or
popularise a political narrative substantially at odds with the version
provided by “official sources” should anticipate neither a lengthy nor a successful
career.

This examination of Twenty-First Century New Zealand
journalism cannot, however, be concluded without a word or two concerning the glittering
exceptions to the profession’s new rules. These are the celebrity journalists –
the handful of political editors, presenters, news-readers, talk-back hosts and
entertainers who dominate the electronic media and are, thus, the principal
shapers of public opinion.

Like the actors of Ancient Greece, their role is to demonstrate
how little we human-beings control the urges and forces that shape our
universe. To explain, in short, the ways of gods to men.

In the Twenty-First Century these deities are the great
private and public organisations to which most of us offer up our daily labour. Through the celebrity journalists' own carefully constructed masks and most particularly through the heroes and heroines they
create, we are invited to participate vicariously in both the comedy and
tragedy of the human condition. In their stories we learn to recognise hubris and hamartia, the
overweening pride and the fatal flaws, that first raise up and then cast down
the dramatis personae of our ruling elites.

What they dare not do – on pain of themselves being cast down from
the electronic Olympus – is encourage their audience to believe that the
greatest story of all; the story yet to be written; is the story ordinary
people will one day write for themselves.

Chris, you speak somewhat messianically of "the story yet to be written; is the story ordinary people will one day write for themselves". It has not happened since Gutenbergs printing press, so when and why? Please expand.

I sat through a long (and I have to say unfortunately wearisome)lecture delivered by Noam Chomsky some years ago. I forget the exact title of the lecture but it included a an exposition of the role of the media in "manufacturing consent" in the age of globalisation. Where Chomsky is a riveting but extremely complicated and demanding read (but almost impossible to listen to :) ), Your brief essay captures the essential ideas in a nut-shell. Well done!

I sat through a long (and I have to say unfortunately wearisome)lecture delivered by Noam Chomsky some years ago. I forget the exact title of the lecture but it included a an exposition of the role of the media in "manufacturing consent" in the age of globalisation. Where Chomsky is a riveting but extremely complicated and demanding read (but almost impossible to listen to :) ), Your brief essay captures the essential ideas in a nut-shell. Well done!

""It's kind of venial sins versus cardinal sins basically ... where reporting is very, very important and journalism is very, very important, and there are some things about campaign coverage that I might critique. Whereas punditry is fundamentally useless."